I could have a go at MS for naming everything "Windows ..." (especially in Vista) – Windows IE, Mail, Defender, ... How silly is that?

Yeah, that's really annoying - you open the Programs menu on a new installation of Vista and pretty much everything in there is called "Windows..." - so unhelpful in trying to find the one you want, and completely pointless too, as I already know that I'm using Windows!

I guess what the ad is saying is that the apps on Windows are not especially integrated, whereas iLife does fit together quite nicely. Though of course you only get iLife when you buy a Mac, not when you buy a copy of Mac OS X, so you have to buy iLife separately (although the two together are still cheaper than most editions of Vista). iLife actually looks pretty cool and I'm looking forward to trying it on my new G3, as I got someone on Freecycle to give me their old iLife '05 discs (Apple made '06 so that most of it needs AltiVec), though it'll probably be a bit slow

Yes, it's a real shame that Apple blocked off iLife '06 to G3s, so I'll only be able to use iLife '05 on it - that's the thing I hate about Apple, the way that they're stripping out all the non-AltiVec fallback code from their apps and probably even from the next OS X for no reason other than because they think it'll make you go and buy a new Mac (witness how Adobe etc don't make their apps require a G4 Velocity Engine, even though their apps are more demanding than, say OS X, or some of the iLife apps - only the makers of the computers do this, of course).

They don't seem to realise that people will get given old G3s like I have, and if they can see how great all the latest Apple software is (as it will run perfectly fine as long as they leave in the fallback code for G3s) then they might consider buying a Mac when they want a new PC. And as for people who bought iBook G3s only 3 years ago, would they ever buy another Mac, having been told 3 years later that they're not getting any more iLife, OS X etc? If it was because OS X couldn't run well on G3 then that would be one thing, but they're doing it for no technical reason at all, except deliberate obsoleting of old-but-good Macs.

What is your main Mac app then? I'm really keen to try as much as possible on this Mac as I've never owned or even really used an OS X Mac before, and I'm really interested in getting to know the modern Mac platform and Unix at the same time (never having used Unix stuff at all)

the way that they're stripping out all the non-AltiVec fallback code from their apps and probably even from the next OS X for no reason other than because they think it'll make you go and buy a new Mac

First, Apple is a hardware company. You could say the same about Microsoft not allowing IE7 or WMP11 on Windows 2000, or DirectX 10 on Windows XP.Second, Apple is all about simplicity and usefulness. Spotlight doesn't run well on most early G4s, and you want Leopard and Time Machine on G3s? I'd say they release a compatibility driver (for you, and me, crazy people) and strip everything of non-Altivec code (it's possible - maxxuss did it for SSE3).

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:

(witness how Adobe etc don't make their apps require a G4 Velocity Engine, even though their apps are more demanding than, say OS X, or some of the iLife apps - only the makers of the computers do this, of course).

Apple is a hardware company. You could say the same about Microsoft not allowing IE7 or WMP11 on Windows 2000, or DirectX 10 on Windows XP.Second, Apple is all about simplicity and usefulness. Spotlight doesn't run well on most early G4s, and you want Leopard and Time Machine on G3s? I'd say they release a compatibility driver (for you, and me, crazy people) and strip everything of non-Altivec code (it's possible - maxxuss did it for SSE3).

That's exactly my point, they're doing this just because they want to force people to buy a new machine. Tiger runs fine on my dad's iBook G3 366 MHz, so it's clear that they're doing this not because the software won't perform well enough on a G3, but just because they want to try and kill perfectly good machines. With DX10 there are apparently technical reasons why it can't be easily produced for XP (so they say anyway), but the comparison with programs for XP that could easily run on 2000 is valid eg Defender.

I'm not crazy It's just that I'm really keen to find out about the "modern" (ie OS X) Mac platform, but I can't afford to actually buy a Mac! So I have to use a free Mac (and it's not worth spending money on one that you're just going to use for messing around with anyway)

As for AltiVec compatibility, from what I've read you would need an AltiVec emulator, not just a driver, and this would cause AltiVec-only programs to run very slowly (whereas if they left in the G3 code and allowed them to run natively they would be usably fast!).

ppc_digger wrote:

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:

(witness how Adobe etc don't make their apps require a G4 Velocity Engine, even though their apps are more demanding than, say OS X, or some of the iLife apps - only the makers of the computers do this, of course).

Yeah, I would really want my Windows Photoshop to require a G4

What do you mean by Windows Photoshop? I'm referring to the Mac version of Photoshop, which only requires a G3. I meant that Photoshop is more demanding hardware-wise than the OS X operating system alone, which proves that Apple are doing this out of greed, not technical reasons ie OS X Leopard wouldn't be usable on a G3.

While Microsoft's software requirements are usually very optimistic eg XP's quoted minimum is a 233 MHz/64 MB PC (as MS want to sell as much software as possible, even if that means selling it to people with PCs that it will be slow on), Apple's are usually hugely inflated (eg ridiculous things like blocking Tiger installations on a Mac with no FireWire, I mean when did you need FireWire to run an OS?!) as they (mistakenly, I think) believe it will make them sell more computers.

As for AltiVec compatibility, from what I've read you would need an AltiVec emulator, not just a driver, and this would cause AltiVec-only programs to run very slowly (whereas if they left in the G3 code and allowed them to run natively they would be usably fast!).

It won't run much slower than native G3 code if you translate opcodes on the fly (like Rosetta does).

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:

What do you mean by Windows Photoshop? I'm referring to the Mac version of Photoshop, which only requires a G3. I meant that Photoshop is more demanding hardware-wise than the OS X operating system alone, which proves that Apple are doing this out of greed, not technical reasons ie OS X Leopard wouldn't be usable on a G3.

You do know I was joking, right?

Besides, if they're so caring, why don't they provide a 604 version for XPostFacto users?

Well as far as I know it would work on a PowerPC 604 (most OS X software will, though I suppose there could be specific things in some programs that cause them not to work), it's just that they don't list that as a supported machine as they don't expect you to be running OS X on one. As opposed to Apple, who actually code their software such that it just refuses to install on older machines, and you have to use XPostFacto to bypass their barriers on good computers like the Beige G3.

Imagine trying to install Vista: "Windows Vista cannot be installed on this computer because you only have 2x USB ports, not the required 4. Press any key to exit Setup". Same thing as saying you need FireWire to run an OS, silly Apple

It's not that I don't like Apple, I like a lot of their products very much (why else do you think I'm so excited about getting this G3 system?), but their greed disappoints me somewhat. Like if your iPod's battery dies, they don't make it like a mobile phone where you can just put a new battery in, they make you send it in to them and charge you almost as much as a new iPod costs! And how if a website puts up their Service Source repair/disassembly manuals or even links to them so that people can repair their old Macs instead of having to buy a new one when it goes wrong, Apple just sue the hell out of them!

Imagine trying to install Vista: "Windows Vista cannot be installed on this computer because you only have 2x USB ports, not the required 4. Press any key to exit Setup". Same thing as saying you need FireWire to run an OS, silly Apple

No, it would be like DirectX 9 saying "no, I won't run on Windows 95, even though it's 99% like Windows 98 as far as I'm concerned". And FireWire is not required to run Tiger, it's a recommendation.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:

And how if a website puts up their Service Source repair/disassembly manuals or even links to them so that people can repair their old Macs instead of having to buy a new one when it goes wrong, Apple just sue the hell out of them!

Well, it's confidential information. It's just like Microsoft suing people who distribute the Windows source code (an action which, just like the one you mentioned, has other motives as well). Apple is a hardware company. Everything it does is to make you buy hardware, just like everything Microsoft does is to make you buy software.

FireWire is required to run Tiger - the first-gen iMacs and iBooks that lacked FireWire can have Panther installed on them in the normal manner, but for Tiger you have to use XPostFacto as Apple put a block in that makes it refuse to install if there's no built-in FireWire.

I could have a go at MS for naming everything "Windows ..." (especially in Vista) – Windows IE, Mail, Defender, ... How silly is that?

Two reasons would probably be:

* pragmatic branding -- consistency, authority and identifiability
The majority of people who buy Windows software are not experts -- having "Microsoft" or "Windows" in front of each product really does help those people know what they are buying or using. If there are two products with similar names and features, guess which one they're going to buy (in the shop) or use (pre-installed) -- the one that *sounds* more authoritative.

* legal prudence
It seems that Microsoft has had to deal with trademark disputes for its entire history. "Excel" was disputed soon after it was released; 20 years later, there were disputes about it "Vista" soon after it was announced, too. In between there have been plenty more disputes They're a big company and people are going to try to cash in. By placing "Microsoft" and/or "Windows" (both of which are trademarks the company already owns) in front of the name, they have a much stronger legal position.

I agree that for people like us it's lame. I too want to see "X", not "Microsoft X". Unfortunately the average user's degree of computer sophistication is just not at that level, and the legal system hasn't caught up with the changes brought about by technology.

FireWire is required to run Tiger - the first-gen iMacs and iBooks that lacked FireWire can have Panther installed on them in the normal manner, but for Tiger you have to use XPostFacto as Apple put a block in that makes it refuse to install if there's no built-in FireWire.

Are you sure it's not another type of lock? Tiger installs and runs fine on PearPC (which doesn't emulate FireWire).

I think they put something in PearPC to somehow fake FireWire to the installer - I seem to remember when Tiger first came out it was difficult to get it installed on to PearPC (just booting the disc would give a "No" symbol on a grey screen), but it works fine with the newer version. You definitely have to use XPostFacto 4 (they made a new version to deal with this) to install Tiger on the first-gen iMacs and iBooks that lacked FireWire, whereas Panther installs without complaint.

I think they put something in PearPC to somehow fake FireWire to the installer - I seem to remember when Tiger first came out it was difficult to get it installed on to PearPC (just booting the disc would give a "No" symbol on a grey screen), but it works fine with the newer version. You definitely have to use XPostFacto 4 (they made a new version to deal with this) to install Tiger on the first-gen iMacs and iBooks that lacked FireWire, whereas Panther installs without complaint.

They emulated fake USB to trick the installer. Firewire had nothing to do with the Tiger incompatibility. It was an IDE controller bug, which was fixed 2-3 months after Tiger's launch.